Personality, Individual Differences and Intelligence

By Jimmy Petruzzi

In the everyday world, the ability to solve practical problems is generally regarded
as an expression of intelligence. The cognitive aspects of problem solving have long been
considered as essential to any well-conceived notion of intelligence (Resnick & Glaser,1976;
Sternberg, 1982). Although problem solving is an essential expression of intelligence, both
experimental and differential psychology have neglected an important class of problems,
for which it is difficult or impossible for systematic procedures to provide a definitive
solution. The wide spectrum of cognitive activities covered by this evolution presents a
dilemma for attempts to understand individual differences in intellectual ability in terms of
specific cognitive processes.

The OB model is for studying individual differences, intelligence and personality are a
relatively fixed parts of individual difference and these individual differences assist and lead
us to attain individual level outcomes at a workplace with some changes like bringing
stabilized attitudes, strong relationship between internal and external locus of
control(stronger relationship between job satisfaction and performance), increasing and
nurturing self-efficacy(a person’s belief about his chances of successfully accomplishing a
specific task), assessing one’s own self-esteem(own self-worth) and emotions intelligence
(ability to manage oneself one’s relationships in mature and constructive ways) required for
a work culture successes.

Opinions attained from individuals in the past, about the perceived relationships
between personality and intelligence strongly converged. A typical intelligent person was
believed to be emotionally stable, extraverted, open to new experiences, and conscientious,
differing on these traits diametrically from a typical individual endowed with low abilities.
The perceived associations between ability and personality traits contrast with the typically
weak correlations found between psychometrically measured intelligence and personality.
Despite a considerable overlap between ability-related personality stereotypes and social
desirability ratings of the personality traits, there was a discrepancy in the attitudes towards
agreeableness. Although the facets of agreeableness were regarded as socially advantageous,
some individuals did not believe that trust, straightforwardness and altruism are necessarily
characteristic of a smart person.

Intelligence and personality are enduring and stable traits across situations and over time.
They show substantial contributions of genetic factors to individual differences. Personality
and Intelligence are considered separate constructs (Maltby, Day, & Macaskill,2007). The
few studies that attempted to link them reported modest correlations. There are interesting
hypotheses about how the two domains are conceptually and empirically related (Furnham,
Moutafi, & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2005; Goff & Ackerman, 1992). Intelligence has been
viewed as the cognitive part of the construct of personality (Brody, 1992; Cattell, 1941;
Eysenck, 1997). Wechsler (1950) considered intelligence to be a manifestation of
personality as a whole and argued that certain affective and motivational factors are
integral parts of the construct of intelligence. Several dimensional models have been
suggested for personality. The five factor model (FFM) distinguishes five domains of
personality: neuroticism (emotional stability), extraversion, agreeableness and
conscientiousness and openness to experience (Costa & McCrae, 1992a).

Well, studies show that these traits show heritabilities from 30% to 60%, with openness to
experience and extraversion commonly being the most heritable. Openness to experience
tends to correlate highest with intelligence and is associated with a wide class of
intellectually oriented traits, such as curiosity, creativity, and willingness to explore new
ideas. Occasionally, extraversion has been reported to correlate (positively and negatively)
with intelligence, and this relation has been moderated by the nature of the test and the
context. Correlations of intelligence with conscientiousness have been small and negative
hypothesized that conscientiousness is a trait that less intelligent individuals can possess to
compensate in a competitive environment. Conscientiousness, in contrast, has been
positively associated with academic performance. Agreeable people tend to be pleasant and
accommodating in social situations and this trait is rarely associated with intelligence.
Conscientiousness has the strongest positive correlation with job and training performance.
Extraversion is associated with success for managers and salespeople. Individuals with high
levels of emotional stability tend to be relaxed, secure, unworried, and less likely to
experience negative emotions under pressure. Those with low levels are prone to anxiety
and tend to view the world negatively.
 Intelligence is one of the more active debates currently in psychology. It has been
known to encompass almost all of the popular psychological debates; nature vs nurture
being just one. However, it wasn’t until recently that people started to take an interest in the
differences between people’s perceptions of individual intelligence.

It would not take an expert to convince you that what intelligence is differs from place to
place and region to region – for example what is classed as intelligence is different in the
Western hemisphere than the Eastern Hemisphere. This is both obvious and expected,
because researchers have noticed changes over recent years, in that more of the eastern
oriental countries (Korea, China and Japan) are adopting more westernized ideals of
intelligence.

This is evidence by research on individuals, in the United States, laypersons rated

intelligence as the presence of the following: practical problem-solving (this is the ability to
solve everyday problems), verbal ability (the ability to confidently communicate, this
meaning one can solve the problem and successfully communicate the solution both
confidently and clearly), social competence (this would involve the person being able to
confidently socialist – so people having social skills is considered intelligent behaviour).
These are the major requirements to be considered intelligence.

They were then compared to the eastern definitions of intelligence including: general
cognitive factor of intelligence, this referring to something similar to the western ideal of
problem solving, and also is related to one’s cognitive ability – so this refers to higher
cognitive competency would lead to better ability to problem solve. Interpersonal
intelligence refers to the ability to communicate with others and be adept in social
situations, also being able to change from one social situation to another without difficulty.
Intrapersonal skills, this is one which was not seen in the western ideal of intelligence and
refers to ones modesty as such, for it includes one’s ability to know their abilities and values
to a true level and thus one's ability to view themselves objectively. Intellectual self-
assertions links strongly to the previous point as it would involve one's ability to successfully
take charge of their own skills and use their most beneficial expertise. Intellectual self-
effacement which refers to the ability to be modest about intellect.

Yet Korean studies in 2002 suggested that Koreans are taking a more western ideal of
intelligence in that they rate intelligence as the following: social competence, problem
solving ability, coping with novelty, self-management ability and practical competence.
One another’s intelligence is something separate for the individual – your intelligence level
may differ in another’s view; this depends on the situation, as our abilities differ in
situations.

References

Brody, N. (1997). Intelligence, schooling, and society. American Psychologist, 52(10), 1046-

1050.

Cattell R. B. (1941). Some theoretical issues in adult intelligence testing [Abstract]. Psychol. Bull.38,

592

Costa PT, McCrae RR. Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and Individual
Differences. 1992a;13:653–66

Eysenck, H. J. (1997). Personality and experimental psychology: The unification of psychology

and the possibility of a paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(6), 1224-
1237.

Furnham, Adrian & Moutafi, Joanna & Chamorro-Premuzic, Tomas. (2005). Personality and
Intelligence: Gender, the Big Five, Self‐Estimated and Psychometric Intelligence.

Goff, M., & Ackerman, P. L. (1992). Personality-intelligence relations: Assessment of typical

intellectual engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 537-552

Glaser, R. (1976). Components of a Psychology of Instruction: Toward a Science of

Design. Review of Educational Research, 46(1), 1–24. 

Maltby, John & Day, Liz & Macaskill, Ann. (2010). Personality, Individual Differences and
Intelligence.

Sternberg, R. J., Conway, B. E., Ketron, J. L., & Bernstein, M. (1981). People's conceptions of
intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(1), 37-55

Wechsler, D. (1950). Cognitive, conative, and non-intellective intelligence. American

Psychologist, 5(3), 78-83.